My point on stigmata still stands. It is something that is not seen in Orthodoxy, and many of the things that accompany the receiving of so-called stigmata certainly are not known to Orthodox ascetic practice/experience.

You, and the authors of your quoted article, are not familiar with the Synaxarion entry for St. Gregory Palamas then?

"In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul."

My point on stigmata still stands. It is something that is not seen in Orthodoxy, and many of the things that accompany the receiving of so-called stigmata certainly are not known to Orthodox ascetic practice/experience.

You, and the authors of your quoted article, are not familiar with the Synaxarion entry for St. Gregory Palamas then?

"In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul."

I don't really see how you think your argument that St. Gregory Palamas had stigmata has any legs at all... Maybe in the Byzantine Catholic Church, but certainly not in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It seems to me that the phrase you quoted is simply just a figure of speech. He suffered for Christ and bore his Cross, thus he figuratively (and literally through his sufferings) "bore the wounds of Christ". We aren't to think of this literally, that he literally had scars on his wrists (or hands), a scar on his side and scars on his back... I would argue that any suffering of martyrdom or torture for Christ is bearing the Cross with him.

These people that suffered for Christ bore his wounds much more powerfully and truthfully than anyone who claims to have had a vision and claims they now wear the scars Christ wore....

The Most Holy Catholic Apostolic Assyrian Church of the East, founded by the Apostles Peter, Thomas, and the Disciplers Mar Mari and Addai, with jurisdiction over the entire East (confirmed numerous times by opposing patriarchs, including the papacy in 1288 via sacred bull of Nicholas IV);

btw, we have no interest in what the pope of Rome has to say after they adopted the filioque.

And Antioch, according to the Ecumenical Fathers, has jurisdiction over all the East.

Quote

the holy church which is upholder of Syriac Christianity

That would be the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch.

Quote

and the sacred language of Aramaic

Which the Assyrians don't speak. Aramaic is only spoken by Melkites/EO and Maronites. And oddly enough, the Muslims of Malula.

Quote

who's Holy script was used by the Holy Prophets

No, they used the (Paleo-)Hebrew script (Ragatz)

Quote

and our Lord the Messiah

Not exactly. He used the Aramaic alphabet and the Assyrians use the derived Eastern Syriac script.

Quote

to express the Divine Will affirms with the full might of its Apostolic Succession,

Having left the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church after the Third Council, not exactly.

that differences in communion between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church are merely political and that both are the two lungs of the Western Church in their respective cultural perspectives.

Since it is neither Orthodox nor in submission to the Vatican, how is it in the position to say that?(Emphasis added by me)

Ditto what ialmisry said... The Antiochian Church is the true Church of the East. And the Eastern Orthodox Church is not "the other lung", we are the body of Christ (singular), we are the only true Church.

As for Padre Pio, my statement still stands that he is not a Saint. I greatly respect many people in the west, whether they be Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, the monastics or others. However, I don't believe they are Saints. They are certainly closer to the truth than others such as Ghandi, Buddha or the Dalai Lama, but they are still outside of the Church. I pray and hope that although their absence from the Church can be dangerous for them, that they are still led to God through their own faith and what truth may be in there.Padre Pio was no Saint, as we said before, he led someone from Orthodoxy, and no Saint standing in the heavenly kingdom would actively lead people here away from Orthodoxy.I hope and pray that he is in heaven, and that this "vision" is simply a deception of Satan. But we ultimately cannot truly know if he is or not, because it is up to God. But we can know for certain that this was not of God. "You will know them by their fruits", the fruit of this "healing" was not in line with Holy Orthodoxy, and thus we can conclude that it probably didn't have holy origins.

However, I won't say the healing was not from God either... It is certainly possible that the healing was from God, but Satan deceived these people into attributing it to Padre Pio so they would leave the safety of Christ's Church. I pray that the healing was from God and these people simply were deceived & led away by Satan.

No matter the origins, these people made a grave mistake. Let's pray they repent and return to Holy Orthodoxy.

In other words, I got caught with my foot in my mouth so I'll pretend the the Synaxarion means something other than what it says. Read the entire text. It already comments on his stuggles and sufferings. It clearly states he was adorned with the wounds of Christ. Quite a specific phrase not used of other confessors. Spin it how you want, it simply reveals how some Orthodox, especially converts from Protestantism, will blindly take up any polemic against Catholics even if unfounded and poorly researched.

In other words, I got caught with my foot in my mouth so I'll pretend the the Synaxarion means something other than what it says. Read the entire text. It already comments on his stuggles and sufferings. It clearly states he was adorned with the wounds of Christ. Quite a specific phrase not used of other confessors. Spin it how you want, it simply reveals how some Orthodox, especially converts from Protestantism, will blindly take up any polemic against Catholics even if unfounded and poorly researched.

Or it shows how your background deludes your way of thinking when reading texts. I don't mean to be harsh, but coming from a western background, I know that simply being a Protestant or Catholic deludes your way of thinking. You don't really fully understand texts, and you often don't understand the full meaning behind something. Your background influences your way of thinking.

If you have a background of believing in stigmata, then sure, you are going to immediately think that is referencing stigmata. But I would say Orthodox would argue otherwise and would affirm that St. Gregory Palamas did not have stigmata.

My friend, I did research it (albeit quickly), and I refuse to use any source from Catholics, whether they be Latin Rite Catholics or Byzantine Rite Catholics. That is just a no-brainer. It's not a prejudice I have, but Orthodoxy is simply the truth, and I will trust our sources over others anytime.

I'm sorry for not being very politically correct in my approach, but I cannot just sit here and let people outside of Orthodoxy try to tell us what Orthodoxy & the truth is. I don't hate anything non-Orthodox, but I cannot sit here and pretend to believe that those traditions are equally as valid as ours. That would simply be degrading to Orthodoxy and I can't slander our Church like that.

Just so we know the context, here is the full paragraph containing the quote that Deacon Lance cited:

Quote

Then the great saint was freed by the lovers of Christ [from the Agarians who kidnapped him], and this bloodless martyr returned once more in joy to his flock. In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul. Let us describe him; these were his characteristics. Along with his excellence he was meek and humble. (We do not speak here of God and divine matters, for he was quite a defender of these.) He did not remember evil and was good-natured, desiring to return good for evil. He never quarreled. He was always patient and magnanimous in the face of adversity. He was above vanity and sensuality. He was always temperate and not extravagant in all personal necessities, and for all that time he was not ill. He endured quietly and silently, always graciously, to the limits of what was done to him, so that all would see him as reasonable, attentive and keen witted. And consequently he never allowed his eyes to be void of tears, but sympathized with a flow of tears.

You would think that if "the wounds of Christ" meant something like physical stigmata, the hagiographer would go into greater detail about it- how and when St. Gregory received them, how they never healed but never were infected, etc., as this phenomenon would be truly exceptional in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Instead, the writer goes on immediately to describe, in the same paragraph, "his characteristics": he was meek and humble, good-natured, never quarreling, patient and magnanimous, longsuffering, temperate, etc. He always sympathized with a flow of tears. An intuitive reading of the text, in my opinion, would suggest that these characteristics are the "wounds" the writer speaks of.

In short, it seems to me that Deacon Lance is guilty here of some rather egregious proof-texting.

MODERATION: The rule dictating that we are to use proper titles when referring to or speaking to clergy on this forum also applies to our relations with non-Orthodox clergy, such as our Byzantine Catholic Deacon Lance. -PtA

Just so we know the context, here is the full paragraph containing the quote that Lance cited:

Quote

Then the great saint was freed by the lovers of Christ [from the Agarians who kidnapped him], and this bloodless martyr returned once more in joy to his flock. In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul. Let us describe him; these were his characteristics. Along with his excellence he was meek and humble. (We do not speak here of God and divine matters, for he was quite a defender of these.) He did not remember evil and was good-natured, desiring to return good for evil. He never quarreled. He was always patient and magnanimous in the face of adversity. He was above vanity and sensuality. He was always temperate and not extravagant in all personal necessities, and for all that time he was not ill. He endured quietly and silently, always graciously, to the limits of what was done to him, so that all would see him as reasonable, attentive and keen witted. And consequently he never allowed his eyes to be void of tears, but sympathized with a flow of tears.

You would think that if "the wounds of Christ" meant something like physical stigmata, the hagiographer would go into greater detail about it- how and when St. Gregory received them, how they never healed but never were infected, etc., as this phenomenon would be truly exceptional in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Instead, the writer goes on immediately to describe, in the same paragraph, "his characteristics": he was meek and humble, good-natured, never quarreling, patient and magnanimous, longsuffering, temperate, etc. He always sympathized with a flow of tears. An intuitive reading of the text, in my opinion, would suggest that these characteristics are the "wounds" the writer speaks of.

In short, it seems to me that Lance is guilty here of some rather egregious proof-texting.

So his qualities are his wounds? Now that is tortured interpretation if ever I saw one.

I also believe it is the policy of this forum to use the titles of clergy when addressing them. If you cannot extend that courtesy to me because I am Byzantine Catholic, please don't address me at all.

In other words, I got caught with my foot in my mouth so I'll pretend the the Synaxarion means something other than what it says. Read the entire text. It already comments on his stuggles and sufferings. It clearly states he was adorned with the wounds of Christ. Quite a specific phrase not used of other confessors. Spin it how you want, it simply reveals how some Orthodox, especially converts from Protestantism, will blindly take up any polemic against Catholics even if unfounded and poorly researched.

If he had stigmata, given the Vatican's obsession with this sort of thing, I'm sure it would have come up by now. At the very least, we should expect icon depicting it.

Somewhere here I posted discussions I'd have on CAF, on the submitted mindset: a Church submits to the Vatican without a change in its texts (at least at first) except a commemoration of the pope of Rome. People go on as nothing has happened. In time their best and brightest go off to to the Vatican for training, pilgrimage, whatever. There they are confronted with what the big mama really teaches, i.e. Latin theology including all sorts of things like Immmaculate Conception etc. and then their inferiority complex (fed of course by Latinizers) compels them to search out to seek proof that their Church has believed the same from time immorial. Immaculate Conception is read into all sorts of things that the Orthodox (EO or OO, or for that matter the Nestorians) ever dreamt of: their ancestors sang those hymns and read those texts with the Immaculate Conception never entering their mind, and the Orthodox (and Assyrians) continue to do so. Those in submission to the Vatican largely did so too, until 1850 (more like 1870). But now those who submitted to the Vatican accuse the Orthodox of having changed their theology just out of spite of the Supreme Pontiff. "Look! It's right there....!" where of course it never was. That is, until the submitters needed to read it into there. I already see the process gearing up for Coredemptrix.

I've never heard of an Orthodox saint bearing stigmata as far as I now recall. I'll agree its possible, but I'm going to have more proof than a dogmatic (with Vatican view) interpretation of a vague text.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In other words, I got caught with my foot in my mouth so I'll pretend the the Synaxarion means something other than what it says. Read the entire text. It already comments on his stuggles and sufferings. It clearly states he was adorned with the wounds of Christ. Quite a specific phrase not used of other confessors. Spin it how you want, it simply reveals how some Orthodox, especially converts from Protestantism, will blindly take up any polemic against Catholics even if unfounded and poorly researched.

Or it shows how your background deludes your way of thinking when reading texts. I don't mean to be harsh, but coming from a western background, I know that simply being a Protestant or Catholic deludes your way of thinking. You don't really fully understand texts, and you often don't understand the full meaning behind something. Your background influences your way of thinking.

If you have a background of believing in stigmata, then sure, you are going to immediately think that is referencing stigmata. But I would say Orthodox would argue otherwise and would affirm that St. Gregory Palamas did not have stigmata.

My friend, I did research it (albeit quickly), and I refuse to use any source from Catholics, whether they be Latin Rite Catholics or Byzantine Rite Catholics. That is just a no-brainer. It's not a prejudice I have, but Orthodoxy is simply the truth, and I will trust our sources over others anytime.

I'm sorry for not being very politically correct in my approach, but I cannot just sit here and let people outside of Orthodoxy try to tell us what Orthodoxy & the truth is. I don't hate anything non-Orthodox, but I cannot sit here and pretend to believe that those traditions are equally as valid as ours. That would simply be degrading to Orthodoxy and I can't slander our Church like that.

Please don't presume to know what I understand. I spend a great deal of my time explaining and defending Eastern theology to Latin Catholics. Being Catholic I am predisposed into accepting the possibilty that stigmata are a genuine gift. On the otherhand, you must admit being Orthodox predisposes you to discounting it. Please note I also did not ask you to use or trust any Catholic source. I referenced an Orthodox liturgical book.

Just so we know the context, here is the full paragraph containing the quote that Lance cited:

Quote

Then the great saint was freed by the lovers of Christ [from the Agarians who kidnapped him], and this bloodless martyr returned once more in joy to his flock. In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul. Let us describe him; these were his characteristics. Along with his excellence he was meek and humble. (We do not speak here of God and divine matters, for he was quite a defender of these.) He did not remember evil and was good-natured, desiring to return good for evil. He never quarreled. He was always patient and magnanimous in the face of adversity. He was above vanity and sensuality. He was always temperate and not extravagant in all personal necessities, and for all that time he was not ill. He endured quietly and silently, always graciously, to the limits of what was done to him, so that all would see him as reasonable, attentive and keen witted. And consequently he never allowed his eyes to be void of tears, but sympathized with a flow of tears.

I don't recall St. Paul being classed as having stigmata. In fact, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" lists their saints, and they are all post Schism (which in and of itself makes me suspect).http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm

I think the reference to St. Paul makes it decisive that we are talking about something else. If we compare the original Greek of the hymn and the original of Colossians 1:24, we might make that conclusive.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So his qualities are his wounds? Now that is tortured interpretation if ever I saw one.

You must have a really hard time reading poetry, not to mention patristic exegeses. "So the unburnt bush is represents the Theotokos? Talk about a tortured interpretation!"

Liturgical prose is full of metaphor and one expects to find it there. The Synaxarion is a collection of biographies, not liturgical poetry.

LOL. Byzantine prose is anything but straightforward prose.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My point on stigmata still stands. It is something that is not seen in Orthodoxy, and many of the things that accompany the receiving of so-called stigmata certainly are not known to Orthodox ascetic practice/experience.

You, and the authors of your quoted article, are not familiar with the Synaxarion entry for St. Gregory Palamas then?

"In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul."

I don't really see how you think your argument that St. Gregory Palamas had stigmata has any legs at all... Maybe in the Byzantine Catholic Church, but certainly not in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It seems to me that the phrase you quoted is simply just a figure of speech. He suffered for Christ and bore his Cross, thus he figuratively (and literally through his sufferings) "bore the wounds of Christ". We aren't to think of this literally, that he literally had scars on his wrists (or hands), a scar on his side and scars on his back... I would argue that any suffering of martyrdom or torture for Christ is bearing the Cross with him.

These people that suffered for Christ bore his wounds much more powerfully and truthfully than anyone who claims to have had a vision and claims they now wear the scars Christ wore....

The Most Holy Catholic Apostolic Assyrian Church of the East, founded by the Apostles Peter, Thomas, and the Disciplers Mar Mari and Addai, with jurisdiction over the entire East (confirmed numerous times by opposing patriarchs, including the papacy in 1288 via sacred bull of Nicholas IV);

btw, we have no interest in what the pope of Rome has to say after they adopted the filioque.

And Antioch, according to the Ecumenical Fathers, has jurisdiction over all the East.

Quote

the holy church which is upholder of Syriac Christianity

That would be the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch.

Quote

and the sacred language of Aramaic

Which the Assyrians don't speak. Aramaic is only spoken by Melkites/EO and Maronites. And oddly enough, the Muslims of Malula.

Quote

who's Holy script was used by the Holy Prophets

No, they used the (Paleo-)Hebrew script (Ragatz)

Quote

and our Lord the Messiah

Not exactly. He used the Aramaic alphabet and the Assyrians use the derived Eastern Syriac script.

Quote

to express the Divine Will affirms with the full might of its Apostolic Succession,

Having left the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church after the Third Council, not exactly.

that differences in communion between the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church are merely political and that both are the two lungs of the Western Church in their respective cultural perspectives.

Since it is neither Orthodox nor in submission to the Vatican, how is it in the position to say that?(Emphasis added by me)

Ditto what ialmisry said... The Antiochian Church is the true Church of the East. And the Eastern Orthodox Church is not "the other lung", we are the body of Christ (singular), we are the only true Church.

As for Padre Pio, my statement still stands that he is not a Saint. I greatly respect many people in the west, whether they be Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, the monastics or others. However, I don't believe they are Saints. They are certainly closer to the truth than others such as Ghandi, Buddha or the Dalai Lama, but they are still outside of the Church. I pray and hope that although their absence from the Church can be dangerous for them, that they are still led to God through their own faith and what truth may be in there.Padre Pio was no Saint, as we said before, he led someone from Orthodoxy, and no Saint standing in the heavenly kingdom would actively lead people here away from Orthodoxy.I hope and pray that he is in heaven, and that this "vision" is simply a deception of Satan. But we ultimately cannot truly know if he is or not, because it is up to God. But we can know for certain that this was not of God. "You will know them by their fruits", the fruit of this "healing" was not in line with Holy Orthodoxy, and thus we can conclude that it probably didn't have holy origins.

However, I won't say the healing was not from God either... It is certainly possible that the healing was from God, but Satan deceived these people into attributing it to Padre Pio so they would leave the safety of Christ's Church. I pray that the healing was from God and these people simply were deceived & led away by Satan.

No matter the origins, these people made a grave mistake. Let's pray they repent and return to Holy Orthodoxy.

The Antiochian Church are Byzantine appointees. They are to Antioch what Byzantine Catholicism is to Constantinople.Having a rival patriarch appoint you does not give you jurisdiction over that area.

So Gregory of Palamas had stigmata? And you guys still criticise Francis of Assisi? How unfair and sectarian is that?

What Orthodox poster here confessed that St. Gregory had stigmata?

synaxarion.

Great. Thanks for that helpful post. We're arguing over the interpretation of the Synaxarion, and only Latins and U-word people have offered the interpretation of St. Gregory having the stigmata.

I honestly don't even see why this would be appealing to Latins, because in their own tradition it is a sign of great sanctity. Their church takes issue with many of St. Gregory's assertions, so wouldn't this only seem to support his theological formulations in their eyes?

Galatians 6:12-17"As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. but God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." -from the OSB(Emphasis mine)

Commentary from the OSB:"Paul is no hypocrite or coward. He has persevered through much for what he is teaching, and he bears in his body the marks to prove it."

2 Corinthians 12:7-10"And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." - From the OSB(Emphasis Mine)

Commentary from the OSB:"Unlike his opponents, who publicly proclaimed their own greatness in their mystical experiences, Paul sees his thorn in the flesh as given to him precisely so he might not be exalted. What was this thorn? Perhaps a chronic physical problem, or deluded Christian leaders, or heard-hearted Israelites. Nevertheless, for Paul, his weakness, not his mystical experiences, is the means of the power of Christ remaining in him."

I find most of this commentary irrelevant and redundant. But then again, I believe I am discovering that I am not a huge fan of commentary. I tend to like to let the primary source speak for itself when it comes to religious texts. Don't get me wrong, I like commentary in historical narratives, as history is commentary, but I hate interrupting a reading with frequent footnotes.

I find most of this commentary irrelevant and redundant. But then again, I believe I am discovering that I am not a huge fan of commentary. I tend to like to let the primary source speak for itself when it comes to religious texts. Don't get me wrong, I like commentary in historical narratives, as history is commentary, but I hate interrupting a reading with frequent footnotes.

Whenever I do read the scriptures (which sadly, is not very often for me anymore), I use it mainly as a quick way to tell me what it means and what I'm to believe. I don't ever have time to look up what the Church Fathers & Saints say about passages, so I have to use the OSB commentary. I wouldn't say it's the best, but for me it's sufficient most of the time.

I find most of this commentary irrelevant and redundant. But then again, I believe I am discovering that I am not a huge fan of commentary. I tend to like to let the primary source speak for itself when it comes to religious texts. Don't get me wrong, I like commentary in historical narratives, as history is commentary, but I hate interrupting a reading with frequent footnotes.

I find most of this commentary irrelevant and redundant. But then again, I believe I am discovering that I am not a huge fan of commentary. I tend to like to let the primary source speak for itself when it comes to religious texts. Don't get me wrong, I like commentary in historical narratives, as history is commentary, but I hate interrupting a reading with frequent footnotes.

Then the great saint was freed by the lovers of Christ, and this bloodless martyr returned once more in joy to his flock. In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul.

There is the use of the word "bloodless". Isn't stigmata supposed to bleed? How then can he be a "bloodless" martyr?

I honestly do not believe they are referring to bleeding wounds in this case.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

So Gregory of Palamas had stigmata? And you guys still criticise Francis of Assisi? How unfair and sectarian is that?

What Orthodox poster here confessed that St. Gregory had stigmata?

synaxarion.

Great. Thanks for that helpful post. We're arguing over the interpretation of the Synaxarion, and only Latins and U-word people have offered the interpretation of St. Gregory having the stigmata.

I honestly don't even see why this would be appealing to Latins, because in their own tradition it is a sign of great sanctity. Their church takes issue with many of St. Gregory's assertions, so wouldn't this only seem to support his theological formulations in their eyes?

I don't know if there are any "Latins" in this thread who find this idea appealing. I don't believe that Gregory Palamas is a saint by any means and, therefore, I doubt that he could have had the Stigmata.

So Gregory of Palamas had stigmata? And you guys still criticise Francis of Assisi? How unfair and sectarian is that?

What Orthodox poster here confessed that St. Gregory had stigmata?

synaxarion.

Great. Thanks for that helpful post. We're arguing over the interpretation of the Synaxarion, and only Latins and U-word people have offered the interpretation of St. Gregory having the stigmata.

I honestly don't even see why this would be appealing to Latins, because in their own tradition it is a sign of great sanctity. Their church takes issue with many of St. Gregory's assertions, so wouldn't this only seem to support his theological formulations in their eyes?

I don't know if there are any "Latins" in this thread who find this idea appealing. I don't believe that Gregory Palamas is a saint by any means and, therefore, I doubt that he could have had the Stigmata.

You are aware that your Vatican disagrees with you, no?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So Gregory of Palamas had stigmata? And you guys still criticise Francis of Assisi? How unfair and sectarian is that?

What Orthodox poster here confessed that St. Gregory had stigmata?

synaxarion.

Great. Thanks for that helpful post. We're arguing over the interpretation of the Synaxarion, and only Latins and U-word people have offered the interpretation of St. Gregory having the stigmata.

I honestly don't even see why this would be appealing to Latins, because in their own tradition it is a sign of great sanctity. Their church takes issue with many of St. Gregory's assertions, so wouldn't this only seem to support his theological formulations in their eyes?

I don't know if there are any "Latins" in this thread who find this idea appealing. I don't believe that Gregory Palamas is a saint by any means and, therefore, I doubt that he could have had the Stigmata.

How many times are we going to go over this? St. Gregory Palamas was restored to the Rome approved and published Greek Catholic liturgical books. If you are looking for a better endorsement I invite you to write Rome.

Then the great saint was freed by the lovers of Christ, and this bloodless martyr returned once more in joy to his flock. In addition to the other many and great gifts and preeminent qualities, which he had, he was also adorned with the wounds of Christ, bearing also in himself Christ’s, according to Paul.

There is the use of the word "bloodless". Isn't stigmata supposed to bleed? How then can he be a "bloodless" martyr?

I honestly do not believe they are referring to bleeding wounds in this case.

i think the bloodless aspect was referring to the type of his persecution as opposed to being persecuted in a bloody manner, such as flogging or being fed to the lions.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

How many times are we going to go over this? St. Gregory Palamas was restored to the Rome approved and published Greek Catholic liturgical books. If you are looking for a better endorsement I invite you to write Rome.

Fr. Deacon Lance

How many times must we go over this, this decision of Rome was not on the same level as a cannonization. If Gregory Palamas had gone through the cannonization process, then I would agree that the matter is no longer up for debate but he has not. Therefore, I am free to question the matter. Reasons why I reject the sainthood of Palamas:1. He rejected certain aspects of the Catholic faith.2. He refused to enter into communion with the Catholic Church.3. Some of his teachings are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

i think the bloodless aspect was referring to the type of his persecution as opposed to being persecuted in a bloody manner, such as flogging or being fed to the lions.

Yeah, I know...but, the line was getting interpreted so literally, that I couldn't resist. Sorry.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

In the Melkite and UGCC, his commemoration as a Saint has been liturgically restored to the second Sunday of the Great Fast. The Anthologies are published and approved in Rome.

And yet he has not gone through the cannonization process, so this can still be questioned.

I don't mean to be uncharitable, but your statement is a great example of the Latin mindset towards the Eastern Catholic Churches that led many of us and our families to return to the Orthodox Church. Like it or not, your thinking on this subject is contrary to the teachings of your Church, post-Vatican 2 for sure.

The official recognition of saints grows from the consensus of the church.

I am not adopting the Eastern Orthodox view. We are talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox view. In the CC, yes regional and local veneration of non-cannonized persons may be legitmate, but that does not make such veneration binding on the whole Church and leaves open the possibility that such a non-cannonized person is not a saint.